Air Force Careers

Someone asking F-35 questions?

Big picture answer:

F-35As: Coventional Takeoff and Land variant (CTOL). The AF is buying enough to replace the F-16s and A-10s. Partner Nations also buying a bunch. I won't get into the debate on how it will perform the Close Air Support as opposed to the A-10 style of CAS. Let's just say, it will be slightly different. First test jet is flying as we speak (broke Mach 1 for the first time last week), next set of test birds are rolling off the line in a couple of months. In the fleet in a few years (late 2013-ish)

F-35Bs: Short-Takeoff and Vertical Land variant (STOVL). Marines are replacing their Harriers and F-18s with this bad boy, Harriers first (boy, they are OLD!). Our Brit friends are buying these as well. The STOVL test birds will be flying soon as well. Into the Corp's fleet even before the AF (did I mention the Harriers are old?). Will be a great addition to the Navy's Army's Air Force.

F-35Cs: Carrier Variant (CV). Navy bird (obviously), replacing the older F-18s first. The last in development, the first test CVs are a year away. Navy gets theirs about 2016 (again, -ish).

Realize the plan is to make a ton of them, all depending on the program keeping costs under control (again, another debate for another time), and if Congress keeps the funds rolling (in the current economic situation, who knows?)

Hopefully, you all will get your turn in the cockpit. Flown the simulator already; AWESOME capabilities, AMAZING cockpit! :thumb:
 
I know you said that you wouldn't get into a debate about how the F-35 will perform CAS role compared to the A-10, but I would be interested to hear your input. I'm sure the F-35 will perform the job admirably. However, I don't see how it could be as effective, seeing as how the A-10's only purpose is CAS, whereas the F-35 seems more fighter oriented. What do you think Bullet?
 
Well,

The F-18, F-16, and F-15E have been doing an admirable job of the CAS mission for almost two decades now, especially during our on-going campaigns in Iraq and Afghaniatan. Even the B-52s and B-1 have been performing CAS for a while now.

New weapons, less of a threat environment (to the flks in the air that is), and new "toys" in the cockpits make the mission much more now than the traditional "orbit a couple of thousand feet over the tank column and strafe 'em." NOTHING can compare to A-10 in it's down-and-dirty way of doing CAS, but that way may be becoming a thing of the past, along with a lot of other ways we do a lot of other missions.

Just remember this: the technology you have in your cell-phone today is exponentially more capable than the computers we had in our jets a decade ago. Our way of fighting the air battle is just starting to catch up...
 
However, we digress from the original intent of this forum; AF careers.

Yes, the flying part gets most of the glory in the AF, but we are all a part of a TEAM; without that team, not one airplane will EVER get its mission done.

There are soooooo many great careers in the AF, and over the 20+ years I was in, I can count the ones who didn't love thier jobs on only one hand. A little jealous of all the attention the flyers got, sure. But NO ONE hated what they did (except for a sorry few).

I have no regrets leaving when I did this year, and I LOVE my new job (but notice it still is connected directly to the AF). But the thing I will miss the most, and what I will take with me as one of the greatest things in my entire life (besides my wife and kids) is the PROFESSION I was a part of and the people I worked with in the AF. I'm sure the same could be said for all the services; I just happen to be baised to the AF for obvious reasons...

And I feel sorry for those who will never have the chance to experience that.
 
What are some common careers in the AF besides flying? To be honest I really don't know very much about most of the AF careers other than flying and special ops.
 
There are so many careers in the air force. I would say that just about every civilian occupation has an Air Force equivalence. I personally spent my 20 years in the Electronics and Telecommunications world. I worked for R&D, DOE(Dept of energy), DNA(Defense Nuclear Agency), at Kirtland AFB/Sandia Labs in New Mexico. I also did traditional Air Traffic Control in Holland. Tactical Comm in South America and Middle East. Missile Communications in Wyoming. And a bunch in between that dealt with Satellites, Microwave, Radio, Telephone, Encryption, Data, computers, etc....

I've worked with those in traditional military jobs such as intelligence (Recon F-4); Air Operations; Command and Control; Forward Air Control; Air Base Ground Defense; Coast Guard; DEA; ICBM missiles; ALCM; etc.... On the civilian oriented jobs, I've had a lot of friends who worked in administrative, supply, service oriented, construction, electrical, carpentry, plumbing, retail, legal professions, medical, scientific, transportation, security, financial, etc...

I would say that there are some military jobs that you just aren't going to find in the civilian world such as missiles, weapons, etc... But there are very few civilian type jobs that you couldn't find in the Air Force. later.... mike....
 
well since my vision is also very poor....my top 3 choices would be:intelligence, missile command, and contracting officer
 
TOP: OSI or pilot
Intel, SF after that...and um...yeah (something that could cross train into OSI)
 
btown13 said:
true. i believe the kc-135's were supposed to be replaced in the 60s or 70s. but they got somewhat refitted and are still around, and still will be around through at least the 2020's. and the B-52's have been around since the late 50's if i am not mistaken, so there is that potential
Click to expand...

The KC's were NOT to be replaced in the 60's and 70's.

FYI...the last KC-135A rolled off the factory floor in 1965 (it has a 1964 tail number).

They were "retrofitted" beginning in 1984 with CF108 engines (mil version of CFM-56B-1 engines). 100 of the "A" models were converted with TF33 engines and redesignated KC-135E. Those jet's are pretty much all retired as of today.

We currently have approx 450+/- KC-135R/T aircraft flying globally in two versions: Block 30 and Block 40.

They're scheduled to remain in the inventory until 2030 or later. Truth be told, there just isn't a plane out there that can truly do the A/R mission any better. There are plenty of "nicer, newer, fancier" jets but...for mission accomplishment?

Nope.

So the mighty "Stratobladder" will continue onward and upward!

Steve
KC-135R IP
(with time in the A, C, D, E, Q models)
and one-time eagle driver
 
Everyone talks about flying F-35s and F-22s, but I think that buying more new fighter planes seems kind of a waste of money. We have the greatest air force in the world, we should be happy enough with F-15s (after a few upgrades). A least I know I would be, but that's just me.:biggrin:
 
flieger83 said:
The KC's were NOT to be replaced in the 60's and 70's.

FYI...the last KC-135A rolled off the factory floor in 1965 (it has a 1964 tail number).

They were "retrofitted" beginning in 1984 with CF108 engines (mil version of CFM-56B-1 engines). 100 of the "A" models were converted with TF33 engines and redesignated KC-135E. Those jet's are pretty much all retired as of today.

We currently have approx 450+/- KC-135R/T aircraft flying globally in two versions: Block 30 and Block 40.

They're scheduled to remain in the inventory until 2030 or later. Truth be told, there just isn't a plane out there that can truly do the A/R mission any better. There are plenty of "nicer, newer, fancier" jets but...for mission accomplishment?

Nope.

So the mighty "Stratobladder" will continue onward and upward!

Steve
KC-135R IP
(with time in the A, C, D, E, Q models)
and one-time eagle driver
Click to expand...

my bad on that wrong info. i thought i remember hearing something about that with the whole air force Boeing fiasco from a few months ago:redface:
 
Katie,

A few years back, The AF opened up a bidding competition between all th aircraft manufacturers for a tanker replacement aircraft. Mostly to replace the aging KC-135 fleet. The winner of the competition was announced earlier this year--European Aerospace Defense System (EADS), which would build the planes in partnership with Northrop Gruman. Boeing, the other major competitor, protested the AF's decision to Congress, mostly on the arguement that a European company would be building American aircraft (= loss of jobs in the US, according to their claim). Congress put the contract on hold,and told the AF to re-open the bidding competition again. THAT process will start after the new administration takes office. In the meantime, our current fleet of tankers just gets older, and more beat up as the demand for tanker support continues with two active conflicts. Another Black Eye for the AF.


UnitedStatesAFA2013,

Good question, and the same arguement a lot of peple have been presenting to Congress these past few years, as defense budgets have skyrocketed and the economy has tanked. Updating our current fleet of fighters rather than buying completely new ones has cost-benefits, and we would still enjoy a superiority in the air, a lot of which has to do not only with technology but with the caliber of our aircrews. But (and this is a Rosie O'Donnel sized BUT) (pardon my pun), we have enjoyed a recent history of fighting conflicts against nations with little to no real airpower to speak of. Iraq had some good Russain jets, but very bad Iraqi pilots. Afghanistan's AF mostly consisted of kites. Our public has come to EXPECT the next air war to also be a walk in the park. Great that they have a strong sense of confidence in our airpower, but when you expect something like this, upgrades and advancements are questioned ("why do you need that, you're already the best.")
There are several nations out there, competitors to the US of A, who have some really good equipment, both in fighters and surface-to-air weapons, and they continue to improve. Their pilots are training just as hard as ours; maybe not our caliber yet, but getting closer. These issues would make a poential conflict against them a lot more difficult for us than what we've recently faced. America would still see us win, but would they accept the number of air losses we would suffer? (and we would suffer quite a few employing yesterday's airframes upgraded with some of today's technology). Our brothers-in-arms on the ground EXPECT to be free from attack from the air, because they EXPECT we will continue to enjoy AIR SUPREMACY in any potential conflict. We can no longer garuantee that in some of the World's potential battlefields. American troops have not been attacked from the air since the Korean conflict; that most likely would change in the next major conflict with a near-foe.

So the answer the US military is proposing? Fifth-generation aircraft, with superior manueverability, electronics, and stealth capabilty. The F-22, the first fifth-generation fighter in the world, DOMINATES any potential air-to-air threat out there. The next generation of aircraft the US is pursuing have similar capabilities. Our potential foes are advancing, and even surpassed us in some capabilities. We are taking steps to overcome their advancements.

But this comes at a price. A HEFTY price. You have obviously joined the debate: is that price worth it? I'm still on the fence, seeing both sides. There is also classified information on fifth-generation capabilities (WHICH I WILL NOT DISCUSS HERE!) that helps the arguement in its favor, but even then, I still ask myself, is it worth the price.

My opinion, Yes, but not in the numbers currently asked for. Save some money and upgrade our current fleet to increase their capabilities and survivability in future conflicts. However, be willing to expect some losses of some American aircraft and some American Airmen. Is America ready for that? Are You?
 
Last edited:
BTW, please forgive some of my spelling in my posts. Can I fly in a multi-million dollar aircraft, righteously employing superiour 21st century technology and Airpower against Ameria's foes? Sure (well, at least I used to until recently).

Can I type or spell worth a damn? Not to save my life! :biggrin:
 
Bullet,

You have way more experience in this subject than me, I could see, and so I'm not going to argue. From what I know (or probably just think I know), expensive/fancy combat planes would become nearly obsolete. We (as humans) have developed very superior land-to-land missiles that could reach one continent to another with incredible precision. So thinking about it, what do these new planes bring to the plate that could emphasize, or counter an attack like that, better?

Also, my bias is, I side in favor of the economy. If we hadn't been screwed over by those corp giants, I might be singing a different tune.

On a different note, I salute you! You have done what I can only dream of someday doing. :rockon:
 
hornetguy said:
Unless you have an eye disease (glaucoma, etc.) or another abnormality, the Academy offers PRK to bring your vision within limits to become a pilot.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought my vision would disqualify me, but I guess I'll have a few more options to choose from. I don't know what my vision is exactly, but when I checked it with my eyedoctor, he let me squint and I was able to get 20/50, but the optometrist for the DODMERB physical wouldn't let me squint, so I know the score sent to the academy shows worse.
 
Again, if you don't have any eye disease you probably have a good chance of qualifying for corrective surgery. I've met multiple people who entered the Academy with very poor vision but they were able to get corrective surgery in their junior or senior year.
 
Bullet said:
There is also classified information on fifth-generation capabilities (WHICH I WILL NOT DISCUSS HERE!) that helps the arguement in its favor
Click to expand...
Lasers?
Teleportation?
Invisibility?
Improved Air Conditioning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top